The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave Christianity behind. This area contains articles sent in between January 2001 and February 2010. To view recent posts, click on the "Home" link.

ARCHIVES:

I've been monitoring the postings on this site for about a week now and I've noticed that atheist's have fell in the same trap I fell in years ago after letting my atheism be known.

All atheist need to keep in mind that there is no evidence nor arguments for god's existence. All arguments that I've ever seen fall under the "god of the gaps" category. That is, if someone doesn't understand something or some cause they fill in that "gap" in man's knowledge with "god did it"!!!

Keep in mind that just because there's no apparent explanation for something, in no way proves anything about the existence of a deity.

When someone claims evidence for the existence of a deity, don't accept the "god must have done it" explanation. It explains nothing except a gap in man's knowledge at the time. For example, our primitive ancestors couldn't understand thunder and lightning, so they come up with "god did it." Now, no one believes that a god is the cause of lightning and thunder because that "gap" in man's knowledge has been filled with current, testable data from science.

In the future, demand evidence specific to the claim. Don't let them get started on the "how could this be possible" band wagon.

You'll be amazed at how soon they (believers) will find someone else to argue with that will accept their questions that are not relevant.

Try it and you'll see. Thanks for your time in reading my comment/suggestion.

21 comments:

I've been enjoying a long debate with a sincere Christian via the web. I'm happy to accept he "just believes" something but will challenge any claim to a basis in fact. Of course, the historical facts are not up for debate just the Bible's claims of the miraculous which have no substantiation elsewhere. I've come to the conclusion that the God of the Gaps is the only credible argument they have left. What a pathetic place to be.

I introduce myself as an atheist, but really, I do not care if a god exists or not. What I have heard christians (read jews; muslims; hindus, whatever)say about their god is so bizarre that no debate is needed.

We all know what I mean. Ideas like original sin; the chosen people; the son of god; damnation, really my dears, we should grow out of these notions.

The worst thing about these people--don't you call them "fundies"?--is their persistent belief in the flood. I have known christians who are eager to demonstrate the scientific evidence for the genesis flood, and I tell them that they are missing the fucking point. Blank stare. Okay, schatzi, here's the point: What the fuck kind of god would do a thing like that? What kind of deranged monster would kill everything on earth: men; women; children; babies; birds; butterflies. Why? because they were evil? Looks to me like the god of the jews had no equal in evil. Blank stare.

If the poor SOB is still able to talk, I next ask him "when did god start loving the world?" (john 3:16)From the flood story, and from the bloody war stories that follow in the next many books, it is perfectly obvious that god hated the world. So he had a change of heart?

I would like to talk to a few more of these people, but I find their lack of humor pitiful. Do these people ever laugh and joke?

Xian doctrine is irrational, otherworldly, and impractical. It promises much, and delivers nothing. Four hundred years of opposition have not yet rid the West of the rotting corpse of its dead god.

Chinese culture was far luckier. From that very rational, this worldly, and practical book, The Analects, attributed to Confucius (500 BCE):

6:20 Fan Ch’ih asked what constituted wisdom. The Master said, “To give one’s self earnestly to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom.”

15:23 Tsze-kung asked, saying, “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” [trans. S.R. McIntyre 2003]

No god is needed to police human behavior. All ethics is irreducibly social. Harming others can not be generalized; otherwise, no culture could exist.

My love, there are arguments for god's existence, such as, for example, Aquinas' Unmoved Mover, otherwise known as the Prime Mover. This goes back at least as far as Aristotle.

But Cara Mia, I am not interested in arguments that may or may not be valid. I am interested in facts that can or cannot be substantiated. Do you--or does anyone else--have the facts? Does a deity exist, yes or no, and present your answer as a fact or set of facts. I have as much use for an "argument" as I have for a poem written by a drunkard.

The deity is either a fact, or not a fact. The deity does not exist as a conclusion of an argument, or as the third line of a syllogism. Unless you are able to present god as a fact, then god has no more meaning than the Webmaster's unicorn.

There are plenty of "arguments" for "Gods' existence". On behalf of the author, I think it was implicit that none them are convincing. Notwithstanding, "Atheism" isn't a proclamation that "God doesn't exist!"----it is simply lack of belief. That's the extent of it. There is certainly no way to "prove" lack of belief, nor is it prudent to do so. The burden of proof is in the lap of the one who HAS the belief; the one making the positive claim.

Actually, the comparison of God to the pink unicorn is a false analogy, because if you don't believe pink unicorns exist, ( and they may somewhere in the universe for all you know ) it has no consequences even if they do.

However, the existence of God may well have consequences, thus the analogy is false.

Further, unicorns are irrelevant to the question of the origin, development, and fate of the universe, further falsifying the anlaogy.

I think you are lackign the ability to note implication. Many Christians lack the ability to note context, and in this case you are illustrating a complete and utter disregard for context. The original author IMPLIED that there are no succesful arguments for the existence of God. As such, there ARE NO ARGUMENTS for the existence of God. The author implies that an unsuccesful argument for the existence of, oh, I dunno, pink unicorns stands as evidence that there are no arguments.

Considering the above, the author has already proven their original statement: there are no arguments for the existence of God. No argument put forth for the existence of God has been succesful. You can play the semantics game, and ask for evidence, but the fact is that the argument is its own evidence. In order to best the argument of the author, someone else, other than the author, must present succesful evidence, or argument, for the existence of God.

Seeing as how there are no arguments for the existence of God, that should prove difficult. What, do you want the author to single-handedly disprove each and every argument for God? As the author already stated, the only argument Christians have when it boils down to it is, "How do you explain," or the God of the gaps theory. The author has already disproven the validity of this argument as showing it as a logial fallacy. So once again, the author has shown that there are no arguments for the existence of God.

. . . of course, you might still have an argument, Wilson. If so, I'd love to hear it. And just in case you don't understand my IMPLICATIONS AND CONTEXT HERE, that means that you have to show a succesful argument for the existence of God . . . otherwise, there are no arguments for the existence of God.

I have had a very friendly almost year long email relationship with a pastor who is a young earth creationist as well as Bible literalist.

It's so hard not to just say "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND !!!!!" but I remain civil and let this guy speak and reveal the total nonsense. The more he reveals, the more I realize the Bible could not hold an ounce of truth.

The way he can justify an uncoditional loving God sending people to Hell for instance, or the reason a baby is allowed to die of a brain tumor is because Eve ate a God Damn apple.

It has been an interesting lesson in how the brain washed will carry on the brain washing. Kids and really dumb people in his church will buy into this crap hook line and sinker and I think it is so sad.

Hey Wilson if you want to prove a loving God can not exist, spend a day with me at my job at the big city hospital. We will visit the children's cancer ward where so many prayers go unanswered, and witness the many tragedies that unfold any given day at a level one trauma center.

I will always leave open the possibilty of a God existing, but there is no way in hell it's the Bible God, or that he has anything to do with the day to day operations of this planet. If a God exists she created us and moved along to the next stop never to return.

Wilson: However, if...as in your case on behalf of the poster...you [wish] to backtrack on the claim itself, then of course the terms of the argument are altered accordingly.

Naah, I'm certainly not going to backtrack on, or retract, someone elses statement. I, as well as a few others, merely pointed out what was likely implicit/implied from the onset. In any event, I won't speak for someone else, regardless of how obvious their intent was. To me it was obvious; to you, it was a loophole. So be it.

Now that that's out of the way---and since we agree on where the burden of proof lies---let's examine any and all objective evidence in regards to arguments for the existence of biblegod; evidence that affirms such a deity. Listening.

My feelings were hurt by Wilson's refusal to respond to me. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". Well shit, I'll just have to get over it.

Wilson, after reading the posts here this morning, I would cut my losses and quit the field. You have had some training in philosophy--it shows--but you are showing it off. You are impressed with yourself after doing PHL 101, no doubt from some baptist bible college.

The Webmaster's analogy is just fine. When people talk about the gods they were taught to believe in, they might just as well be talking about unicorns, or leprechauns, or satyrs. Tell us darling, what is your argument for a deity's existence? Do you have one? If not, then why are you here?

And then you said that god's existence "may well have consequences". Well, what are they? May well have conseqences? Maybe god exists, and maybe his existence matters, and maybe I am going to fry in presbyterian hell because I am not elected. Wilson, my dearest, I have no interest in such "maybe" or "might" or "could".

You think that it is up to us to prove that there is no argument for god's existence. Sweetie, all you have to do is come up that argument, and you win the day. It is just that simple. Or that difficult.

First, as boomSLANG & trancelation observed, you zeroed in on a literal rather than contextual interpretation of the post. Second, are you aware you've helped demonstrate the Joe M's premise that there are no arguments for the existence of God that aren't predicated on a gap?

Actually, the comparison of God to the pink unicorn is a false analogy, because if you don't believe pink unicorns exist ( and they may somewhere in the universe for all you know ) it has no consequences even if they do.

However, the existence of God may well have consequences, thus the analogy is false. [Emphasis added]

Immediately you appeal to the idea that there is no evidence proving or disproving the existence of unicorns - a gap - in the context of an indirect argument for god's existence. Knowing full well that there is equally no evidence proving or disproving the existence of God, you want to suggest that due to consequences we should be more inclined to believe in God even though there is no evidence for such a being.

Put simply, you're filling a gap with the idea of consequences.

In any case, to accept that there may be consequences one first has to accept that there is a god that imposes them. Were you aware that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) "burns with anger against theists, and allegedly grinds them beneath her holy hooves?" Thus, there are also alleged consequences for rejecting her in favor of a different god. Does the suggestion of consequences make arguments for the existence of the IPU any more rational? Of course not! To believe in these consequences, one must first accept that the IPU exists sans evidence.

Further, unicorns are irrelevant to the question of the origin, development, and fate of the universe, further falsifying the anlaogy.

O ye heretic! Did you not know that Her Pinkness allowed the "creation of the universe through natural physical phenomena by not ever existing except in the minds of men (and women and aliens)" (link)? Of course she is thus relevant to the origin and fate of the universe! [/sarc]

Again, you're filling a gap - the same one, I might add - with the concept of relevancy.

So, you've successfully confirmed the original poster's underlying premise, and used a gap as a receptacle for consequences and relevance which you mistakenly assume lend more credence to your beliefs. Only if your god exists does He have relevance. Only if He exists can He impose consequences. The same applies to the IPU, so the analogy is valid.

I guess I should have titled my comment, "NO SOUND ARGUMENTS FOR GODS EXISTENCE"

Wilson:

I think you knew what I was saying, but like another poster said, you found a loophole and that's fine too.

I thought I proved that there is no arguments for gods existence by showing that no matter what you or any other believer might come up with you will have to resort to the "god of the gaps" everytime.

Even when you play your philosophy games you have to demonstrate that a premise is true to a valid argument before it becomes a "sound" argument. Is this not correct?

For the sake of the readers of these postings, please list a detailed argument for gods existence that will not eventually result in "god of the gaps" and then we can lay this to rest.

Thanks to J.C. Samuelson for pointing out that Wilson has already proved my point by resorting to gaps.

My apologies to Spacemonk if he thought I was implying that atheists believe such arguments. I was only saying that atheists find themselves arguing irrelevent points when the person making the god claim is really just giving evidence for gaps in current knowledge/understanding and not evidence for god, whatever a god may be.